Our Dead Constitution

Our Constitution is dead. Rigor mortis set in a long time ago. Peculiar enough, many Americans who claim to love our constitution believe it is alive and well with hot red blood running through its vein. Plainly put: they are naÃ¯ve, deceived or ignorant. Those who killed the constitution (and their posterity, with whom we are living today) pick up the dead corpse, move it around like a puppet on strings, put make up on it to make it look pretty, prop it up against a wall to stand on its own, and proclaim and swear an oath to us and God that they will preserve, defend and protect what they know to be dead. Ironically, they accomplish this, in part, through what they term a â€œliving constitutionâ€, which has bled the lifeâ€™s blood from our constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans fail to see that our political circumstances are very similar and parallel to those which our founders considered to be a line in the sand.

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused Americaâ€™s War for Independence. The cause was not â€œtaxation without representationâ€ per se. It was not â€œthe government is too bigâ€ per se. It was not â€œtaxes are too highâ€ per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Natureâ€™s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyneâ€™s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be â€œlivingâ€ and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,

â€œThe contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by â€˜the law of God and nature,â€™ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that â€˜the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,â€™ and â€˜there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional nowâ€™ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attainâ€¦ Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.â€ The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.

Great Britainâ€™s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paulâ€™s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, â€œThere are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.â€ James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our livesâ€“all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.

Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so â€œlight and transientâ€) abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a â€œconservativeâ€ judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties.

Thomas Paine witnessed those during his living-constitution/government-despot days whose only method of redress was to send correspondence and complaint to King George and Parliament, hoping for reclamation of freedom through the very system that was enslaving them. To these plans of action, Thomas Paine says, â€œThere was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.â€ Thomas Paine and Mark Philip, ed., Oxford Worldâ€™s Classics: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 27. To Thomas Paine, changing the plan of action to resist and arrest tyranny was simply Common Sense. Thankfully, our founders agreed. Thankfully, this change meant truly standing for freedom, natural rights, limited government, self-government, federalism and constitutional government. This change necessarily meant putting off the old man and putting on the new. It necessarily meant burying the dead and quickening the fetus of freedom.

The United States Constitution was formed and framed on certain immutable principles: principles which acknowledge that God is the Source of all rights; the Definer of all authority; the Judge of all actions and laws; the Giver of life, property and pursuit of happiness. Those principles never die. They live forever. However, as our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence, governments can become destructive to these ends. Indeed, they can. Understand: Great Britainâ€™s history was similar to Americaâ€™s. It contained men and women of principle and courage who were catalysts to providing freedom throughout Europe. Europe indeed is the home of the forefathers which our founders studied and adored. Great Britainâ€™s constitution was formed and framed upon the principles expounded upon by Enlightenment philosophers, jurists, lawyers, judges, and theologians. Yet, their constitution diedâ€“not because of natural causes, but because those who were constrained by it killed it.

History proves this: not even a (free) constitution can secure freedom where the principles of it are abandoned and the applications of it are ignored. French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (whom our founders relied upon heavily in political thought) confirms this in his book, Spirit of Laws, when he says, â€œThe constitution may happen to be free, and the subject notâ€¦It is the disposition only of the laws, and even of the fundamental laws, that constitutes liberty in relation to the constitution.â€ Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The Worldâ€™s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 183. How observant he was.

Why is America not free? Is it because we do not have a free constitution? No. Is it because the principles that formed our constitution do not create freedom? No. Is it because Obama is in the White House? No. Is it because Democrats are evil? No. Is it because God was â€œkicked outâ€ of our public schools? No. Is it because abortion was made â€œlegalâ€? No. Is it because America engages in unjust wars? No. Is it because Americaâ€™s presidents have entangled in foreign affairs? No. Those are simply fruits of the root of our dead constitution. Our constitution is dead because our agents, the government, have created a matrix, a system whereby our original constitution and its principles have no application to their power. They are merely bound by their arbitrary discretionâ€“the very definition of tyranny. Even worse, our constitution is dead because the people and the states have consented to its murder.

Like a loved-one who has passed on, I love and miss our constitution (not that it has been alive since I was born in 1979). Yet, while I love the constitution, I love the freedom it was designed to protect much more, and I put freedom and its principles above and beyond the document and words of our constitution. Indeed, the words of the constitution do not create freedom. History and common sense teach us this (which is why America cannot â€œspread democracyâ€ to the world). Thus, I do not love the words contained in the constitution. Rather, I love the principles of the Laws of Nature and Natureâ€™s God which formed the words. I do not love the three separate branches of the federal government: I love the limits of power and authority they were instituted to secure. I do not love federalism: rather, I love the security it brings to ensure that my children live in freedom.

Thankfully, since principles derived from the laws of God never die, we the people of the states continue to have the power of truth to reestablish and reinstitute forms of government to secure our freedom. Thankfully, we have fifty sovereign and independent states to activate the principles of free government within those political borders, resisting and arresting any attempts from outsiders who would attempt to enslave their citizens. Thankfully, our forefathers bequeathed to us a framework, legacy, heritage, and foundation of hope and freedom. They bequeathed to us truths we hold to be self-evident.

We all have fond memories of our constitution when it was alive and well, but the time has come when we who love the freedom it protected must admit that those who are supposed to be bound by its mandates, principles and limitations have killed it, and they need to be treated like the murderers they are, just as Thomas Paine said about his government: â€œA common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker, has as good a pretence as he.â€ Paine and Philip, ed., American Crisis I, 64. These murderers have put us into a place in nature before the constitution was quickened and made alive by the people of the sovereign states of America. See, Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 14â€“15. We are literally better off not having made alive this document that is literally being used against us, our posterity and our freedom. They are forcing us to consider recalling and retaking all the powers we gave them (as our agents) for the protection of our and our posterityâ€™s life, liberty and pursuit of happinessâ€“our natural rights from God. In fact, this is what John Locke confirms about our natural right:

â€œAbsolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give to any one, or more, an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrateâ€™s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them. This were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man, or many in combination.â€ Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 72.

Freedom for a Change

The people of the states must get serious about this matter. We must put the fear of God and the fear of the people before the eyes of tyrants. Otherwise, they will be like those described in Romans 3:16-18 (KJV) and we will continue to suffer for it: â€œDestruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.â€ When the people of the states of America recognize our natural power to abolish, alter and institute new forms of government to secure the ends of freedom, we will have a free constitution alive and well and a free people benefiting from its life. We will once again have government (of, by and for the people) that has the fear of God and the people before their eyes and that will act accordingly.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorneyâ€™s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of Americaâ€™s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

I agree that Lincoln’s war sure put it on the downward spiral. SCOTUS decisions in the 1920s and 30s that flipped the meaning of the commerce, general welfare, and necessary and proper clauses were the final nails in the coffin.

No doubt that Lincoln's war was the beginning of the end. But I would say that SCOTUS decisions in the 1920s and 30s that flipped upside down the commerce, general welfare and necessary and proper clauses were really the final nails in the coffin.

Great piece – I would perhaps argue on close examination that it began to die, even before the ink had dried in 1789.
An excellent book – if I may recommend – The Rise and Fall of Society by Frank Chodorov.
It is available through the Ludwig Von Mises Institute – in hardcover, paperback – or one can download it free in .pdf format.
I thought this highly interesting — from the first chapter;
"The story of the American State is instructive. Its birth was most auspicious, being midwifed by a coterie of men
unusually wise in the history of political institutions and committed to the safeguarding of the infant from the mistakes of its predecessors. Apparently, none of the blemishes of tradition marked the new State. It was not burdened with the inheritance of a feudal or a caste system. It did not have to live down the doctrine of "divine right/' nor was it marked with the scars of conquest that had made the childhood of other States difficult. It was fed on strong stuff: Rousseau's doctrine that government derived its powers from the consent of the governed, Voltaire's freedom of speech and thought, Locke's justification of revolution, and, above all, the doctrine of inherent rights. There was no regime of status to stunt its growth. In fact, everything was de novo."

Dale, thanks again for the insight and perspective! I haven’t read that book, but every Chodorov essay I’ve ever read has been mind-blowingly good! You’ve got a good point about 1789 – each incremental step towards tyranny is certainly a part of the puzzle…

The deeper one dives into history the more amazed you become … I recently was speaking to a group of students about why it was that the Germans supported Hitler … it was fascinating in the discussion that followed how (I NEVER mentioned anything current) they began drawing analogies between the mood or mindset of the citizens of Germany then and the Citizens of this country today. One student who most assuredly was a Liberal Democrat and most likely an Obama supporter chided me and the other students for comparing Obama to Hitler.
As I mentioned, I NEVER mentioned anything in a present tense …. I reminded him that the Third Reich under Hitler were in power around ten years or so BEFORE WWII broke out and that in the pre-war years, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Mussolini were often compared (in a positive sense) and ALL three in a sense admired one another. I also reminded him and ALL the students that an important thing to remember is that to compare is NOT to equate.
Perhaps one of the reasons that history repeats, is that we attach so much credence to the characters on stage at the moment of history, rather than recognizing that PATTERNS that caused the moment.
The trend toward fascism was wide spread in the world (including the United States)- really since just before the turn of the century .. 19th into the 20th – like anything it ebbs and flows .. advancing and reseeding.
Personally, I don't attach a moral judgement to any of the "ocracies" or "isms" … to me they are "things"
I was a journalist for over 20 years … and during that time made many close friends in BOTH political parties … what is sad in a way is that I have been retired for 15 years and many of those "friends" ARE STILL IN WASHINGTON! But the Democrats I know would swear to you I am a Republican … and the Republicans would bet their first born, that I was a Democrat. In truth .. I am a Political Atheist. Or perhaps a more crass way of putting it is that I am not politically bigoted at all … I don't like ANYONE – Equally.

Sorry, fellas, but Great Britain, with all its political evolutionary advances over time, did not and does not have a WRITTEN Constitution. It merely chugs along, or stutters along, by clinging to or citing tradition. The US of A is the first modern nation to codify the LIMITATIONS of government with a brilliantly written document, ratified by all the participating states (limitations being skillfully ignored by the current administration). When we speak of American Exceptionalism, this charter did more to define what the government of, by, and for the people could NOT do, than what it could do. Exceptional indeed.

Since the power to amend federal power is vested exclusively in a vote of the States, the compact or contract known as the Constitution for the United States cannot be dead. In simple terms, we are dealing with a breech of contract. The agent created by the contract is violating the contract while the principals set on their hands and refuse to take action to enforce the contract.

On December 21, 1798, the State of Virginia adopted a set of resolutions in response to the “Alien and Sedition Laws.” James Madison prepared a detailed analysis of these resolutions. His report stated in part:

‘That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact.

The resolution declares; first, that ‘that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties,’ in other words, that the Federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the States are parties."

He went on to state:

"The resolution having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceeds to infer, ‘that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.’

It appears, to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts- that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States, was framed by the sanction of the States, given each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows that there can be to tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

The Constitution has been circumvented because the States have been hiding in the closet. We need the States to quit kissing federal ass and start kicking some federal ass.

Came across this yesterday in the European Union Times yesterday;
"U.S. Forces Plan Direct Action Against American Citizens"http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/us-forces-plan-dir…
Here is a a youtube link to the audio that the article refers to;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyFgS3G90Q
This is frightening -ï»¿ frightening because what he is saying is highly plausible – However, I think perhaps the only caveat to this is that I wonder if the US Military would even side with the central government considering how it has been so maligned by this administration.
I would wonder if they would react in the opposite direction. – At least I would hope so.
I have had a growing sense that perhaps – just perhaps one of the reasons that Congress seemingly acts in total disregard to the will of the "people" is not that "the American people will forget all this by next November's elections" – rather, that they don't envision elections even begin held next year. I so hope I am wrong.

Came across this yesterday in the European Union Times yesterday;
"U.S. Forces Plan Direct Action Against American Citizens"http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/us-forces-plan-dir…
Here is a a youtube link to the audio that the article refers to;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdyFgS3G90Q
This is frightening -ï»¿ frightening because what he is saying is highly plausible – However, I think perhaps the only caveat to this is that I wonder if the US Military would even side with the central government considering how it has been so maligned by this administration.
I would wonder if they would react in the opposite direction. – At least I would hope so.
I have had a growing sense that perhaps – just perhaps one of the reasons that Congress seemingly acts in total disregard to the will of the "people" is not that "the American people will forget all this by next November's elections" – rather, that they don't envision elections even begin held next year. I so hope I am wrong.

(which looks to be precisely the same as above). In any case, you can get to it, once on youtube, by pasting in the v= parameter into the search box. The title of it btw is: Former Kansas State Trooper Greg Everson: 'U.S. Forces Plan DIRECT ACTION AGAINST American Citizens'

So when was the last time WE THE PEOPLE made the constitution alive? Perhaps you should look prior to 1861 to find your answer. The federal government has made the US Constitution nothing more than a venue for nationalists, communists, socialists and fascists to reign. This is not the sign of an alive constitution. A constitution is nothing more than the structure whereby government operates, based upon the truths of natural and revealed laws. Where a constitution is not followed in character, nature, form, substance and principles, the constitution becomes dead. History and our forefathers confirm this. Why else would our founders have declared independence, formed separate constitutions and admitted the right to alter, abolish and institute new forms of government?

The Constitution gives the States the authority to reassert their right to control the Constitution in Article V wherein they can, by a 2/3 resolution of the States, call for a Constitutional Convention to offer amendments to the Constitution. This provision was added at the Philadelphia Convention to allow the States to reign in a corrupt Congress. Who here doubts that Congress is not now corrupt?